HistoricalChristian.Faith

The "second Cainan" (Genesis 11 LXX / Luke 3:36) — original reading the Jews deleted, or a secondary plus?

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: weak — as a prop for the corruption charge (an original name the Jews excised) the second Cainan fails: even its strongest modern defender posits an accidental loss centuries before the rabbis, and the omission is shared by the Samaritan Pentateuch and by the very Christian chronographers the charge relies on, who themselves rejected the name as an interpolation; the bare text-critical question (original to Genesis 11, or a secondary harmonizing plus?) is, on its own, genuinely contested · advanced on the timeline by Agapius of Hierapolis; the originality reading revived by Henry B. Smith Jr. and Jonathan Sarfati

Related arguments: the Genesis chronology — see also Were the Genesis 5/11 lifespans shortened or inflated?

This argument isolates the one name the chronology strand of the master corruption charge specifies — the extra Kainan of Genesis 11 — and asks whether his absence from the Hebrew is a Jewish deletion or a Greek-side addition.

The claim

"They cut out his name from the Torah; and they cut out his years… to make their followers believe that they were in the middle of the duration of the world… You have cut out his name. But his years, where did you put them? — and they remained stuck and without arguments."

— Agapius of Hierapolis, Universal History (Kitāb al-ʿUnwān), c. 942, tertullian.org (trans. from A. Vasiliev's Patrologia Orientalis edition).¹ The "second Cainan" is a Kainan inserted between Arpachshad and Shelah in the genealogy of Genesis 11 (so that the line runs Arpachshad → Kainan → Shelah, not Arpachshad → Shelah). He stands in the Septuagint of Genesis 11:13–14 (with a begetting-age of 130 and 330 years after), in the Septuagint of Genesis 10:24, and at Luke 3:36 in most manuscripts — but is absent from the Masoretic Hebrew. Agapius makes that absence the most concrete example of his post-Resurrection plot: Annas and Caiaphas, holding the libraries, cut Kainan and his 130 years out of the Hebrew to shorten the world's reckoned age, and were caught when the disciples demanded where the missing years had gone. The claim has two separable parts — a textual one (Kainan was original to Genesis 11, and the Hebrew lost him) and a motive one (the loss was a deliberate, anti-messianic deletion by the rabbis). The argument weighs both.

Who advances it

On the timeline only Agapius makes the second Cainan a deliberate Jewish excision, and he is its fullest narrator. The textual claim that Kainan is original to Genesis 11 — without which the deletion charge cannot even start — has been revived in the modern conservative-chronology camp: Henry B. Smith Jr. (Associates for Biblical Research) defends Kainan's originality at length, and Jonathan Sarfati (Creation Ministries International) argues the Luke 3:36 Kainan is original and the shorter texts lost him.² Against them stands the standard text-critical judgment — Andrew E. Steinmann ("Challenging the Authenticity of Cainan, son of Arpachshad," JETS 2017), Marshall D. Johnson, and Umberto Cassuto ("a later interpolation of no value") — that the second Cainan is a secondary harmonizing plus, an addition on the Greek side that worked its way into Luke, not an original reading the Hebrew dropped.³ Tellingly, the divide does not track the Christian–Jewish polemic: the Christian Fathers who built the long chronology — Julius Africanus, Eusebius, Jerome — themselves rejected Kainan as an interpolation, so the "deletion" the corruption charge needs was disowned by the charge's own side.

The evidence for

Kainan's attestation on the Greek side is early, wide, and partly pre-Christian. This is the real strength of the originality case, and it is not negligible. Kainan stands in nearly all Septuagint manuscripts of Genesis 11 (the early papyrus 911, Codex Alexandrinus, Cottonianus, Coislinianus); his begetting-age of 130 is required by the post-Flood chronology of Demetrius the Chronographer (c. 220 BC), within a lifetime of the original translation; he appears in the genealogy of the Book of Jubilees (8:1–6, c. 160 BC), where — Smith argues — his 57-year begetting-age is integral to the work's own Adam-to-Conquest reckoning of 2,450 years; and he stands at Luke 3:36 in more than forty New Testament manuscripts. So a Kainan between Arpachshad and Shelah was circulating in Greek-language Jewish chronography centuries before any Christian–Jewish dispute could have placed him there — which is fatal to the idea that he was a Christian invention, and is the ground on which Smith and Sarfati rest his originality.⁴

An accidental-loss mechanism is available. Smith proposes that Kainan stood in the Hebrew Vorlage the Alexandrian translators used and dropped out of another stream of the Hebrew tradition by accident — a single slip of the eye (homoeoteleuton) in the highly repetitive formulae of Genesis 11, "likely during the Babylonian Exile" — after which scribes harmonized Genesis 10:24 and 1 Chronicles 1 to the now-shorter text. On this account the divergence is real and the Hebrew is the deficient witness, but the loss is a copying error, not a deletion.⁵

Adversarial assessment

What holds. The bare text-critical question — is the second Cainan original to Genesis 11, or a secondary plus? — is genuinely contested, not closed. The pre-Christian witnesses Smith and Sarfati marshal (Demetrius c. 220 BC; Jubilees c. 160 BC; the near-universal Septuagint manuscript support; Luke 3:36) are real, and a defensible accidental-loss mechanism exists. On the originality sub-question by itself, a reasonable case can be made either way, and the field has not settled it.

What is overstated or runs the other way.

1. The standard judgment is that Kainan is a secondary plus, not a lost original. The weight of witnesses runs against originality: the name is absent from the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, 1 Chronicles 1 (which carries the genealogy twice), Josephus, Philo, and the Vulgate — and, in Luke, from the earliest and best papyrus (𝔓⁷⁵, c. AD 200) and Codex Bezae. His Genesis-11 figures (begetting-age 130, then 330 years) simply duplicate Shelah's in the Septuagint, the signature of a mechanical, harmonizing insertion rather than an independent ancestral notice; his attestation in Genesis 10:24 and 1 Chronicles is, even on Smith's own description, "messy." The standard verdict (Steinmann; Johnson; Cassuto) is that Kainan was added on the Greek side and migrated into Luke — so the "deletion" is more probably a Greek-side addition, the same reversal that undoes Psalm 96:10's "from the wood" on the master charge.⁶

2. Even granting originality, nothing yields deliberate deletion — Kainan's own defender posits an accident. This is decisive against the corruption reading specifically. Smith's reconstruction is homoeoteleuton "likely during the Babylonian Exile" — i.e. a scribal slip centuries before the rabbis the charge accuses, and with no anti-Christian motive. So the strongest modern case for Kainan's originality is not a case for corruption at all; it actively excludes Agapius's "Annas and Caiaphas cut him out after the Resurrection." The deliberate-deletion reading has, in the end, no proponent who also defends the textual premise it needs.⁷

3. The omission is shared by the charge's own side. The very Christian chronographers who championed the long Genesis chronology against the Jews — Julius Africanus, Eusebius (in whose own chronicle the name does not stand), and Jerome — rejected the second Cainan as a spurious interpolation. A name that pro-Septuagint Fathers struck out cannot also be the smoking-gun proof that the Jews maliciously struck it out; the corruption charge here accuses its opponents of doing what its own authorities did on the merits.⁸

4. Agapius's flagship example rests partly on a textual mistake. He clinches the deletion by appealing to the name's survival "in the Torah which is in the hands of the Samaritans, and also in the Gospel of Luke." But the second Cainan is not in the Samaritan Pentateuch's Genesis 11 either; the Samaritan text omits him exactly as the Masoretic does. The half of his proof that points to a Hebrew-script witness is simply wrong — leaving only the Greek-tradition Luke, which is itself the disputed reading.⁹

5. Even its defenders concede the chronology does not turn on it. Smith closes his own discussion by insisting that "the originality of the longer chronology is not dependent on Kainan's inclusion," and notes that Josephus and the long-chronology Fathers reached the long reckoning without Kainan. The second Cainan is thus a detachable skirmish, not a load-bearing plank — which is why the broader Genesis 5/11 chronology argument stands or falls on other grounds and is rated contested, while this narrower deletion claim is weaker still.¹⁰

Assessment

Weak. Keep the two questions apart. The bare text-critical question — whether the second Cainan is original to Genesis 11 or a secondary harmonizing plus — is genuinely contested: the pre-Christian Greek witnesses (Demetrius, Jubilees), the near-universal Septuagint manuscripts, and Luke 3:36 give Smith and Sarfati a real, unrefuted case for originality, even though the convergence of the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, 1 Chronicles (twice), Josephus, Philo, and the Vulgate — plus the duplicate-of-Shelah figures and the early 𝔓⁷⁵ omission in Luke — leaves the standard judgment ("secondary plus") the stronger one. But the interpretation this argument serves — that Kainan was an original reading the Jews deliberately deleted to deny Christ — is weak, and fails on three independent counts: (1) even the strongest originality case posits an accidental loss centuries before the rabbis, supplying no deletion and no motive; (2) the omission is shared by the Samaritan Pentateuch and by the pro-Septuagint Fathers (Africanus, Eusebius, Jerome) who rejected Kainan as an interpolation, so the charge accuses its opponents of doing what its own side did on the merits; and (3) Agapius's clinching appeal to the Samaritan Torah is a factual error, since that text omits Kainan too. The honest residue is that the direction of change is, if anything, the reverse of the charge — a Greek-side addition rather than a Hebrew deletion — and that even Kainan's defenders grant the longer chronology does not depend on him. This argument is the named-example half of the Genesis 5/11 chronology argument (overall contested), and a sub-case of the master corruption charge (overall weak); it also intersects the genealogy of Luke 3, where the same reading is debated as a New Testament textual question.

Sources